Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 16 votes

Global warming sham


  • Please log in to reply
909 replies to this topic

#31 herman herb

herman herb

    Resin Coated

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2044 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 09:44 PM

There are no reliable studies having scientific and statistical models that are honest that can support the theory of climate change.


Your taking the piss right? lol Do some research before you debate. You just end up looking silly. Climate change is a fact, proved many times over by many, many reputable scientists.



I notice you say "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming" or "Global Cooling" or even "Global Dimming" to which i have seen documentaries that give credence to......Or do you prefer to use that phrase to cover any eventuality ?.

IMO While there is a split in the scientific community over "Anthropogenic" Climate change, Any opinions on this forum are just that..... personal opinions.



BTW In the United Arab Emirates they have just had SNOW for only the second time in recorded history, And they don't even have a word for it in their lingo :g:
Source

#32 herman herb

herman herb

    Resin Coated

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2044 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:05 AM

Global Warming Myths

HERE


Just so people can see both sides of the argument of course.

#33 Blayz'd

Blayz'd

    Trichomes in full effect

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8847 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:16 AM

Snow in the desert :wassnnme: I keep catching stories of prehistoric sealife not known to exist in shallow waters thousands of meters above their usual depth. A result of climate change maybe? In the last couple of months the Japaneese and caught a couple different kinds. The dopey fuckers took them from their natural environment. Killing both, the only known specimins in the wild. Wankers. They want to start leaving things alone.

I say climate change because that's the most accurate description for me. The climate is changing in different ways all over the globe. So I don't think global warming or global cooling is accurate for the whole. Climate change is bang on the money. ;)

Edited by Blayz'd, 27 January 2009 - 12:17 AM.

Plato said "It is a just person who disobeys an unjust law."
Epictetus said "Freedom is the right to live as we wish."
Voltaire said "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be"
Blayz'd said "When I grow up, I want to be a budologist"
Gil S-H said "Each one reach one, each one try to teach one"

#34 Randalizer

Randalizer

    Resin Coated

  • Lifetime Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23738 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 04:10 AM

Global warming is 'irreversible'


A team of environmental researchers in the US has warned many effects of climate change are irreversible.
The scientists concluded global temperatures could remain high for 1,000 years, even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted.
Their report was sponsored by the US Department of Energy and comes as President Obama announces a review of vehicle emission standards.
It appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists have been researching global warming and the consequences for policymakers.

The team warned that, if carbon levels in the atmosphere continued to rise, there would be less rainfall in already dry areas of southern Europe, North America, parts of Africa and Australia.
The scientists say the oceans are currently slowing down global warming by absorbing heat, but they will eventually release that heat back into the air.
They say politicians must now offset environmental damage already done by man-made pollution.
"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year - that's not true," said researcher Susan Solomon, the lead author of the report, quoted by AP news agency.
Their conclusions come as President Obama ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to review rules on carbon emissions from passenger vehicles.


source

Edited by Randalizer, 27 January 2009 - 04:15 AM.


#35 herman herb

herman herb

    Resin Coated

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2044 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 04:32 AM

Funnily enough i was reading this article earlier and it seems there has always been an answer for the co2 we produce.............

Carbon dioxide is the devil molecule of our time. Belched out from vehicle exhausts and power stations, it is the biggest contributor to global warming. As such it is universally recognised as a Bad Thing. Yet a pioneering band of researchers would like us to see it differently - as a valuable resource. They are developing a collection of technologies to retrieve some of the CO2 that would otherwise pollute the atmosphere, using its carbon atoms to form hydrocarbons. These could then be used as vehicle fuel, or as a feedstock to make plastics and other materials we now derive from oil. So could the expanding clouds of CO2 in our atmosphere really have a silver lining?

The idea is simple. Find a way of removing an oxygen atom from a CO2 molecule and you are left with carbon monoxide (CO). From there it is but a short step to hydrocarbon riches. Mix CO with hydrogen, pass the mixture over a catalyst, and out comes liquid hydrocarbon fuel. This reaction, called the Fischer-Tropsch process, was invented as long ago as the 1920s. It was used by Germany during the second world war, when oil was in short supply, to make petrol from gasified coal, and apartheid-era South Africa did the same when sanctions blocked oil imports.


The rest of the article can be found HERE


So this beggars the question why isn't this technology being used if co2 is such a big problem ?

#36 herman herb

herman herb

    Resin Coated

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2044 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 10:44 AM

Oh bugger, I've just found undeniable proof Global Warming is real :rofl:









































































:rofl: :rofl: lol

Edited by herman herb, 27 January 2009 - 10:50 AM.


#37 ayamami

ayamami

    Vegging Nicely

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:09 PM

This is silly, how can you people not feel the changing environment especially in the UK, and especially as some of you actually grow foodstuffs outdoors? I remember last year cauliflowers were too small because of the cold cold weather, I remember how we only had one proper day of sunshine last summer. Our seasons have completely fucked up even though books back in 1880s (when teh started checking up on climate) described the same weather conditions and seasonal changes as we had in the 1980s. How can it be that all of a sudden the climate and the seasons have changed when they hadn't for 100 years if not longer? I've never heard of medieval farmers harvesting strawberries in April. Crops, plants, animals, birds, these seasonal changes have been set into their genes, they've adapted because of it and yet now they're dying out.

Oil is one thing you know, but even when I was at school before this media hoo hah of going green came about, I was told that we'd see the end of coal and oil in our lifetimes. Because we're using up more of this free energy than our earth can actually produce. Yes the oil rich companies drill the damn oil but they don't make it. That's the issue here, simple economics 101 scarcity. Fuck that's the first thing I ever learnt about in economics. It's not just about ice caps melting, it's about how we're going to feed our fuel guzzling society when fuel becomes too expensive for the normal person to afford? We're going to go backwards if we don't find some way to solve this problem. We'll no longer be able to power our computers, to cook our food, to heat our homes, I don't want to go back to the days of finding wood (what am i going to do, chop down richmond park bit by bit?) and burn it for heat in my own home.

All the dimwits who actually think environmentalism is a scam, what do you propose? Do you really think there will be oil forever, that the Saudis are going to keep drilling and keep finding oil?

#38 Comrade Stoker

Comrade Stoker

    Resin Coated

  • Lifetime Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24757 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 11:53 PM

It's not just about ice caps melting, it's about how we're going to feed our fuel guzzling society when fuel becomes too expensive for the normal person to afford?

All the dimwits who actually think environmentalism is a scam, what do you propose? Do you really think there will be oil forever, that the Saudis are going to keep drilling and keep finding oil?


I object to you calling me a dimwit but ignoring that for now....

There is plenty of oil its just not ours, loads of dirty oil also but that costs a bit of money to clean up so they will leave that till last... but... who do you think dictates the price of oil? If you think it is dictated by how much is left in the world then I suggest you go back to you economics class and take the remedial foundation course.
My outdoor grow (Church and Cheese)
2 x Jacky White and 1 x Grapefruit Outdoor
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

#39 weed_G

weed_G

    smokin

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4541 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 12:28 AM

All the dimwits who actually think environmentalism is a scam, what do you propose? Do you really think there will be oil forever, that the Saudis are going to keep drilling and keep finding oil?

:)

funny to think the most intelligent life form will extinct itself as result of stupidity, if you have managed to read these words and you still don't know the planet is dying as a direct result of human activity, then the chances are you will never know

Edited by weed_G, 28 January 2009 - 12:28 AM.

'We live on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam'
Carl Sagan.

'The eye altering, alters all.'
Blake.

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence.
Gandhi.

#40 herman herb

herman herb

    Resin Coated

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2044 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 12:57 AM

Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up

A deeply flawed new report will be cited ad nauseam by everyone from the BBC to Al Gore, says Christopher Booker.

The measures being proposed to meet what President Obama last week called the need to "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" threaten to land us with the most colossal bill mankind has ever faced. It might therefore seem peculiarly important that we can trust the science on which all the alarm over global warming is based, But nothing has been more disconcerting in this respect than the methods used by promoters of the warming cause over the years to plug some of the glaring holes in their scientific argument.

Another example last week was the much-publicised claim, contradicting all previous evidence, that Antarctica, the world's coldest continent, is in fact warming up, Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet.

However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula the only part that has been warming. The vast mass of Antarctica, all satellite evidence has shown, has been getting colder over the past 30 years. Last year's sea-ice cover was 30 per cent above average.

So it predictably made headlines across the world last week when a new study, from a team led by Professor Eric Steig, claimed to prove that the Antarctic has been heating up after all. As on similar occasions in the past, all the usual supporters of the cause were called in to whoop up its historic importance. The paper was published in Nature and heavily promoted by the BBC. This, crowed journalists such as Newsweek's Sharon Begley, would really be one in the eye for the "deniers" and "contrarians".

But then a good many experts began to examine just what new evidence had been used to justify this dramatic finding. It turned out that it was produced by a computer model based on combining the satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations.

The problem with Antarctica, though, is that has so few weather stations. So what the computer had been programmed to do, by a formula not yet revealed, was to estimate the data those missing weather stations would have come up with if they had existed. In other words, while confirming that the satellite data have indeed shown the Antarctic as cooling since 1979, the study relied ultimately on pure guesswork, to show that in the past 50 years the continent has warmed by just one degree Fahrenheit.

One of the first to express astonishment was Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists". A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."

But it was also noticed that among the members of Steig's team was Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick", the most celebrated of all attempts by the warmists to rewrite the scientific evidence to promote their cause. The greatest of all embarrassments for the believers in man-made global warming was the well-established fact that the world was significantly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. "We must get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period," as one contributor to the IPCC famously said in an unguarded moment. It was Dr Mann who duly obliged by getting his computer-model to produce a graph shaped like hockey stick, eliminating the mediaeval warming and showing recent temperatures curving up to an unprecedented high.

This instantly became the warmists' chief icon, made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report. But Mann's selective use of data and the flaws in his computer model were then so devastatingly torn apart that it has become the most comprehensively discredited artefact in the history of science.

The fact that Dr Mann is again behind the new study on Antarctica is, alas, all part of an ongoing pattern. But this will not prevent the paper being cited ad nauseam by everyone from the BBC to Al Gore, when he shortly addresses the US Senate and carries on advising President Obama behind the scenes on how to roll back that "spectre of a warming planet". So, regardless of the science, and until the politicians finally wake up to how they have been duped, what threatens to become the most costly flight from reality in history will continue to roll remorselessly on its way.


Source

#41 Hughie Green

Hughie Green

    suitably medicated

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13323 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 01:19 AM

"We must get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period,"

"We have concluded that the mediaeval warm period was caused by a proliferation of Dragons heating up the atmosphere"

#42 Wolfsalv

Wolfsalv

    Vegging Nicely

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 03:12 AM

The cool thing is that it's irreversible, what's done is done. The cliffs are this way, come on, come on.
Powered by Skunk and Absinthe

#43 ayamami

ayamami

    Vegging Nicely

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 01:49 PM

It's not just about ice caps melting, it's about how we're going to feed our fuel guzzling society when fuel becomes too expensive for the normal person to afford?

All the dimwits who actually think environmentalism is a scam, what do you propose? Do you really think there will be oil forever, that the Saudis are going to keep drilling and keep finding oil?


I object to you calling me a dimwit but ignoring that for now....

There is plenty of oil its just not ours, loads of dirty oil also but that costs a bit of money to clean up so they will leave that till last... but... who do you think dictates the price of oil? If you think it is dictated by how much is left in the world then I suggest you go back to you economics class and take the remedial foundation course.

I know how companies price goods, I did do an economics degree don't you know. However there's no denying that with scarcity the value of products increase. You say there is plenty of oil, please provide me with hard data to prove that. How much oil is left? How much do we consume per day? And from these results, how many days do we have left?

#44 tokalot

tokalot

    Vegging Nicely

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 06:42 PM

Before trying to use satellite data as evidnce of global warming not being real read this:

http://www.livescien...al_warming.html


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates



For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.

"But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.

Oops!

Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures.

For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.

But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.

Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.

"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.

The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.

"Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.

Argument evaporates

According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."

The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.

But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.

After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.

Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.

"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."

Edited by tokalot, 28 January 2009 - 06:42 PM.

Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men. - J.F.k

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then They came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a communsit.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me" - Pastor Niemoeller (victim of the nazis)

#45 herman herb

herman herb

    Resin Coated

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2044 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 06:47 PM

Repling to "Tokalot"


You do realise that article is dated AUGUST 2005 :naughty:

Edited by herman herb, 28 January 2009 - 06:48 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users